|This well-behaved, well-dressed youngster is clearly an older child...|
Whereas the one who is about to pants her from behind is clearly a youngest child.
So, my friend Crankygirl just had her second baby (congrats!!), and confirmed something I had suspected for a long time, which is: subsequent babies are way cheaper than first babies. For her second child, all she's had to buy are diapers, basically (and since she has cloth diapers left over from Baby 1, she won't have to keep buying teeny tiny newborn diapers for long either).
She has clothes, books, toys - an entire baby infrastructure already set up. Plus (and this is my addition, not hers), subsequent babies tend to be photographed and commemorated less, so there will be less cost for scrapbook pages, printing of photos, etc.
[Note: my older sister and I look so much alike, I don't blame my parents for not taking many baby pictures of me. Since she and I wore the same hand-me-down clothes and looked identical as babies, what's the point of photographing both of us? Her pictures count for both]
|These two are clearly both younger siblings.|
You can tell by how much fun they're having, and by the lack of parental supervision.
But does this sort of frugal thing have repurcussions down the road? There are already a zillion articles about how birth order impacts on personality [third children are more starved for attention and show off more? WHY I NEVER!!] [that is totally, completely, entirely true], but what about how birth order impacts on your budgeting skills?
|At this point, I think we can all safely assume that Sally Draper will have way more psychological problems than Bobby, while Gene will emerge most unscathed from their insane childhood.|
So, this article says that first-born children are usually raised with stricter rules and higher expectations, which leads to them being more likely to become perfectionists. Whereas second (and later) children have less stringent rules, which I theorize makes them terrible at handling their own finances. At least in my case!
And then this article suggests that third children tend to be spoiled, which can also lead to being terrible with money if the parents (and their siblings) always see them kinda helpless, and are always there to provide a safety net.
And to round things out, this article says that latter-born children are more likely to engage in risky behaviour - largely because the parents are just over parenting by that time and/or they feel sentimental about their last child and want to be nicer to them. Which can cause that child to not be as good at finances, potentially!
|The Andrews Sisters, a singing group from the 1940s.|
I'm going to assume the sassy one in the middle is the youngest.
Well, this is all very vague quasi-science, and I'm actually pretty sure that my birth order didn't have anything directly to do with my lifelong allergy to budgeting and being good with money. However, maybe it did? As the youngest of three, maybe my parents were just tired of teaching the same stuff over and over again and let me do my own thing?
What about you guys? Are you the oldest, middle or youngest child (or only child?) and do you think that's affected how you handle your money?